Kant argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he called the

“Categorical Imperative”. The Categorical Imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate
moral actions and to make moral judgments. It is not a command to perform specific actions -- it does
not say, "follow the 10 commandments", or "respect your elders". it is simply formal procedure by
which to evaluate any action which might be morally relevant.

Kant argued, in order to determine what's right, you have to use reason and a sense of consideration for
other people. Kant thought that regardless of our religious beliefs morality should be constant because
he knew that if we look to religion for our morality, we're not all going to get the same answer.

Kant's most famous work, the Critique of Pure Reason and His other books included the Critique of
Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgment talks about Metaphysics as branch of philosophy that
examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter and
between potentiality and actuality.

Kant’s Lectures on Ethics include relevant material for understanding his views. We will mainly focus on
the 14 foundational doctrines of his work.

1.Metaphysical knowledge was a problem that Kant was really worried about at the end of the 18th
century. So he really wanted to know what kind of knowledge philosophical knowledge is, and especially
what kind of knowledge metaphysical knowledge is. answering that question was one of the things he
wanted to do in his first major book.

Kant wants to prove that we are bound by moral requirements and that fully rational agents would
necessarily comply with them.a priori knowledge is knowledge that isn't justified by appeal to the
senses. Kant argues that knowledge and metaphysics has to be what he called synthetic a priori
knowledge. So for example math, you don't have to do any experiments to confirm, for example, that
seven plus five equals 12.

2. The first thing you need to know about Kant's moral philosophy is that he's not trying to convince you
that morality exists. We all know that people behave in a way that they call moral. He starts by asking,
what does it mean to be good. And he says that the only thing that is good without qualification, is the
goodwill, the will to do the right thing. Everything else money, courage, intelligence, good looks, those
things can be used for good or evil. But the will to do good is always good. And it's not good because of
what you can get out of it. So if you are doing good because of its rewards for being good then it is not
in line with the goodwill.

Kant's analysis begins with the thought that the only thing good without qualification is a "Good will".
We don't always act according to the goodwill, we are imperfect. And sometimes we act according to
our other desires. But acting from the goodwill, Kant says is the only way to really be moral. Consider a
bartender who gets a new customer in their bar, the bartender could give the customer the wrong
change and save a bit of money. But he decides not to, he gives the customer the correct change. Kant
asks, Why did he do that? If he did it because he was afraid of getting caught, or because he wanted
repeat business, or even just because it makes him happy? Well, then that's not a genuinely good action,
because it wasn't motivated by the goodwill, it was motivated by the desire to get something else. For
Kant, it's not the consequences of your actions that matter but is that you do them for the right reasons.
3. The only genuinely good actions are the ones that you do purely out of respect for the moral rules.
doing what somebody else tells you to do can't be good. Because whether it's God or if you're just
following orders, you're not acting from the goodwill, you're acting in anticipation of some reward or
punishment. That's why moral reasons are so powerful because they actually come from you. morality is
a system of rules that you place on yourself, respect for the rules always comes as a result of being a
member of something. So I respect the rules of San beda, because I'm a Bedan, I respect the rules of my
country because I'm a citizen. Kant thought that moral rules come to us as a result of being rational
beings as a result of having a mind.

4. Kant pointed out that most of the time whether or not we ought to do something isn't really a moral
choice. Instead, it's just contingent on our desires. Like if your desire is to get money than you ought to
get a job. If your desire is to get an A in class, then you ought to study these are called if then
statements, hypothetical imperatives, they're commands that you should follow if you want something,
but hypothetical imperatives are about prudence rather than morality. So if you don't want money, you
could always choose not to work. And if you don't care about getting a good grade, studying becomes
totally optional.

Kant viewed morality not in terms of hypothetical imperatives, but through what he called categorical
imperatives. These are commands you must follow regardless of your desires, categorical imperatives
are our moral obligations.

5. The first formulation of the categorical imperative is often known as the universalizability principle.
And Kant phrased it this way, act only according to that Maxim, which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law without contradiction. Kant is not saying that you should only do
something if it would be good for everyone to do. If everybody stole stuff all the time, yeah, the world
would be chaotic. But that's not why kant says that you shouldn't steal. He says that you should only act.
If it makes sense for you, that everybody to act in the same way.

Take lying for instance, sometimes you might want to tell a lie, Kant asks you to consider whether it
makes sense to will that everybody lies whenever they want to. In a world where everybody lies, the
whole concept of truth and lies would break down, and eventually nobody would trust each other.

6. This leads us to the second formulation, act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your
own person or the person of another, always as an end, and never simply as a means. This cause us to
respect other people's status as beings of moral worth, as well as to respect ourselves and leave to our
own in our moral voices. For instance, when I go to the bar, am I not treating the bartender as a means?
Not an end? I'm only talking to him because of what I can get out of him. Same is true of doctors, taxi
drivers. it's not really a problem for kant so long as we remember that those people, have their own
ends and it's not okay for us to step on them. Like I wouldn't enslave that bartender and force him to
serve me drinks that really would violate the categorical imperative.

7. For Kant the final formulation reminds us of the responsibility of being a moral being as we should act
as though through your Maxim's could become a legislator of universal laws. Kant asks us to remember
that we are always in a sense, setting an example to other people in what we do, we contribute to what
is normal human behavior, and we have a choice to make about whether to make that normal behavior
good or not. He also reminds us that the moral law has to come from us, we place it on ourselves, and
sometimes we might have to do the things even if it is against our desires.